Opinion: The future of photography and the value of a free photo

Mikael Cho is the founder and CEO of Unsplash, a community where photographers can share their high-resolution photos for anyone to use for free—no credit or payment required. The platform has been criticized roundly by many professional photographers who claim the service devalues photography. In a recent blog post, Cho responded to this criticism, sharing his thoughts on the future of photography and the value of a photograph that is given away for free.

Mr. Cho has given DPReview permission to republish the article in full below.

We didn’t start Unsplash to reinvent an industry. We started Unsplash because we thought it might be useful.

Unsplash is a community where anyone can share high-resolution photos for anyone to use freely. It began as a Tumblr blog with ten photos we had leftover from a photoshoot. Instead of letting our photos sit dead in a hard drive somewhere, we thought it would be better if they were put to use to move other creative projects forward. A freelance designer could grab an image to pitch a mockup or demo. An entrepreneur strapped for cash could put a website up with a nice background photo to attract potential customers.

We believed the good from giving our images away would far outweigh what we could earn if we required payment or credit.

The power of photography

This proved true. By setting our images free, Unsplash turned into something much more meaningful than the hundreds of dollars we likely would have made selling them. Those first 10 photos photos have been seen 58 million times. Unsplash has become a community of over 20 million creators. People from all over the world have generously contributed over 250,000 photos, moving hundreds of millions of creative acts forward.

Unsplash photos mapping the world

Unsplash photos have not only helped designers and entrepreneurs create demos and websites but have been a source of inspiration for everyone from teachers to nonprofits to independent creators.

A few things made with Unsplash

Unsplash contributors share photography to make an impact so our aim has been to push the impact of their imagery like no other platform ever has. Today, a photo featured on Unsplash is seen more than a photo on any other platform. More than Instagram. More than the front page of the New York Times.

You don’t need to come with an audience or have an agent to be great on Unsplash. We bring an audience to you.

The Direct-to-Consumer Creator

As an independent designer myself, I understand you can’t do everything for exposure because exposure doesn’t pay the bills. But to completely dismiss the value of exposure doesn’t make sense either.

All artists need an audience to survive. Why do we spend time posting on Instagram if we don’t get paid for it? Because those posts build an audience over time.

In the last ten years, several platforms like YouTube, iPhone, Twitter, Instagram, SoundCloud, and Medium have enabled more and more of us to express and connect. Sometimes, this expression and connection is done for fun. For nothing but the purpose of creating. Other times it’s done to create an audience for something else. Filmmakers distribute trailers for free on YouTube to sell a movie. Musicians release free songs or entire albums on SoundCloud to sell concert tickets. Authors give free chapters and pour thousands of unpaid hours into blogs to sell a book.

New platforms don’t kill industries. They change the distribution.

Online platforms have opened up an opportunity for so many people to share their craft with huge audiences instantly. New platforms create a distribution channel and community we otherwise wouldn’t have. In this sense, there’s never been a better time to be a creator.

These examples of creators sharing in extreme ways didn’t produce any immediate monetary gain. In fact, they probably lost some sales from it. But whatever the losses, they were more than made up for by the outsized benefits that came from openly sharing their work. As Chance the Rapper said,

“I realized my strength was being able to offer my best work to people without any limit on it.

I make money from touring and selling merchandise, and I honestly believe if you put effort into something and you execute properly, you don’t necessarily have to go through the traditional ways.”

Unsplash is different though…

Unsplash seems like a beneficial platform for hobbyist photographers because hobbyist photographers make money elsewhere. But what about commercial photographers?

I get how Unsplash could seem more devaluing to a commercial photographer than other photo-sharing platforms because you’re giving up your copyright ownership of your photo when you share it. To get behind this argument though, we need to understand what photo copyright ownership gets us. The purpose of holding on to copyright for a photo is typically so you can protect it from someone else taking that photo and selling it for profit.

Before the internet, holding on to copyright for photos was more beneficial because the value in licensing a photo was high. The issue today is a licensed photo is losing its value. The price photo buyers are willing to pay to license a photo is accelerating downward. If you post your photos on a stock photo site, you’ll earn ~$511/year on average on your collection, half what you would make two years ago.

Data from Shutterstock

While almost everyone needs images to do their jobs today, the jobs we do with imagery are different from when photos used to be licensed by media buyers or photo agencies for commercial use. For example, almost 70 percent of the people who download images on Unsplash have never downloaded a photo from a stock photo site before. And the most common uses for Unsplash photos are presentations, blogs, or personal projects.

At the same time, the cost to produce a photo is going down. The five most valuable companies in the world today are all competing on the camera. While professional photography gear is still expensive, mobile cameras are improving at a rate that will eventually put a professional-level camera in everyone’s pocket.

There’s more demand. There’s more supply. But it’s also different demand and different supply. The photo licensing business model doesn’t fit.

Photos as Relationship Makers

Most photographers have transitioned to using photos as tools to create relationships. Professional photographers use photos they took for fun to connect with potential clients. Potential clients enjoy the photos on your portfolio or Instagram, so they hire you for a photoshoot. Hobbyist photographers use photos to build an audience they can direct toward where they make a living or simply to practice their craft.

The human brain is wired to connect with imagery so imagery will always be something people seek out. Since photos work so well as a form of connection, we saw Unsplash as a more impactful way to do that. Giving up your copyright to a photo seems extreme but it’s this extreme level of giving that produces the unprecedented level of connection.

Recently, a team of researchers found the most shared articles from the New York Times were ones that gave readers practical utility. Giving someone something useful tends to have the biggest impact on people. When you pair two powerful things like giving and photography, you reach a whole new level of impact.

Many of our members have said they’ve gained so much from sharing work on Unsplash compared to anywhere else. Many have booked client work after posting just a couple photos. Some have been flown around the world on photoshoots. Some have gotten enough work to leave their jobs and become full-time photographers. Some have been able to build audiences for new products. And every contributor we’ve spoken to has enjoyed the impact their photography has made toward moving creativity forward. Here’s a few of their stories.

Yes, there will be people who use Unsplash photos freely who may have hired a photographer if Unsplash didn’t exist. But by giving photos, Unsplash contributors create a new opportunity for millions of other people to find their work.

If someone needs a photo for a presentation that will only be seen by a few co-workers, they don’t have a budget for photography. If they can’t use a free photo for that, they are not hiring someone. And there is no relationship created. But by finding a photo on Unsplash, a relationship begins. When they need to hire a photographer for a shoot, they’re more likely to go back to the place that fulfills that need. We’re trying to make it so these relationships connect back to the Unsplash contributor that inspired them.

We’ve already begun to build things into Unsplash to strengthen this relationship between photo contributors and the creators they inspire. We’re building up a library of things made with Unsplash to connect back to contributors. Just last month, we launched a “Say Thanks” feature which creates a way for people to publicly recognize the Unsplash contributor who gave the photo they downloaded. And we’ve begun work on an Unsplash member search to help our members book creative work.

In a sense, every Unsplash photo turns into a billboard for our contributors. And the future business model of Unsplash is about creating relationships through the unique attention and use each photo creates.

The future value in photography

By our estimates, there are potentially 100 times more people looking for usable imagery today, than a decade ago. Image use has moved mainstream which is why there’s a new opportunity for a business model that works better for everyone.

There’s no doubt about the impact of photography. Photos are powerful. The question is not if photography will maintain its power but how to create meaningful value from it. We’ve already begun to think about what this looks like. It’s going to take time to figure out. While we don’t have all the answers today, we will always be transparent and upfront about where we’re headed.

Every industry evolves. Things will change. We can’t be resistant to change no matter how much today’s world benefits us. We face the same fact that every artist and business must face: what we offer today will eventually be obsolete. We can choose to be upset with this fact or understand it is inevitable and continue to adapt.

If you do it right, you’ll be the one to disrupt yourself. You’ll be out in front of the pack. You’ll help determine the new value. That’s what we’re looking to do for photography. That’s what we’re looking to do for the creative community. We’re all in the same boat. When the creative industry benefits, we all benefit.

Just for a laugh, I posted 3 photos to 'unsplash' just to see what would happen. One on Monday, one on Tuesday and one on Wednesday. By Thursday I had forgotten about the whole thing...

I was rather surprised to receive an email on today '100,000 views on your Unsplash photos' (see your stats). I didnt know they had stats so I took a look - sure enough, 111,000 views, 869 downloads, 160 likes.

I am quite happy about that. I dont value my photography and like the idea of people seeing it or even finding a use for it. There are some nice photos there and I will probably download and use some for creating composites. Seems a pretty fair trade to me.

Heads-up to all you budding photographers who think that Unsplash will provide more "exposure" and "connection" with potential paying clients:

In its Terms and Conditions, Unsplash makes it clear that by uploading your images, there is absolutely zero guarantee that you will receive any attribution when your image is used. No byline, period. Your image can be used as part of an international award-winning campaign and no one will even know that you exist.

One would think that at the very least Unsplash would require attribution for its contributors. But as has been proven time and again, photographers who give away their images are often scorned by the very people who happily accept those images. It's perverse but when it is time to hire a photographer, they go with the pros who have a reputation and do not work for free. Egocentric movers and shakers want to work with winners, not losers. . .

Some impressions, after stickybeaking the Unsplash site:The collection is highly curated. Someone has put a lot of effort into the editing, collating etc. Some people charge money to edit your work that well. Some people charge money to display your work to an international audience. Yes, the photographers are producing for free, but the web site is servicing them for free, too.

Many images had commercial value - they are as good as many on expensive sites like ImageBrief. 'Had' being the word - as soon as they were uploaded to a free-for-all, the commercial value vanished. ImageBrief (for example) is cheap compared to the disaster of the opposition using the same image.

Many images are quite distinctive, as good photography is. If a publication uses the Cassowary shot by David Clode, for example, that user's peers will immediately know they used the free Unsplash image. I'd say most paying commercial users wouldn't want that, no matter how cheap.

They're mostly not captioned, though. Where was it made? What species is it? Captioning is the backbone of stock. The search can't be text based, just category based, and is very weak on specifics, making a detailed search difficult.

They're not released. Free picture, now let's try to find the photographer and model or property owner to get a release. Commercial users might find it cheaper and safer to pay for having that stuff in place.

I think the commercial photography world will survive, splashed or unsplashed.

"Mr. Cho has given DPReview permission to republish the article in full below" So Mr. Cho needs to give permission for his words to be republished, but creates a platform that allows devaluation of photos by photographers, where photos can be republished and used without any types of permission or credit?

From what I understand, the photographer gives this permission when they upload images to the site.

One thing that no one has seemingly mentioned is that people who provide photos for free will also benefit from being able to download other's photos for free. Its a great peer-to-peer sharing system in that regard.

1- Fair Trade = Transparent Trade.Unsplash at the very least is honest about why they exist. Unlike IG where it takes an attorney to ultimately understand their ULA is giving away your rights to your images. It’s a bait-&-switch. Unsplash is a trade; images for marketing.

2- Market MomentumClients will not return to paying a premium for all of their imagery. Unsplash is not in denial about this. Instead of fighting that trend head-on they seem to be using the devaluing momentum to help photographers solve a marketing problem.

3- Go Stock YourselfUnsplash hurts conventional stock photography houses which have been exploiting most of their contributors since their inception. I always thought that stock photography companies were traps.

4- Stream Music Much?It is counter intuitive to give something away for free but taking it is almost instinctual. This is the state of digital media markets. If you stream music, you are as much perpetrator as you are a victim so settle down.-Alex

Rationalize it is exactly what people need to do to best understand the landscape of the business that they are in.Let me put it this way: Napster didn't kill the record industry, the inability of the record labels to adapt did. Unsplash is not detrimental to anyone's long term interests. The landscape of any industry is in a constant state of flux especially those industries married to technology. Staying one-step ahead of market trends is an obligation of any business owner big or small. When I started 18 years ago I shot film and sold prints that I printed in a darkroom. I used to complain but found competing pays my bills faster.

After 30 years in the biz, I'm not worried about my business failing. Unlike yourself, I worry about how this will affect younger people who dream of making a go of it in photography as a career. I am concerned about the precedents that this sets and the possible negative repercussions for photographers contracting with Unsplash and similar schemes. This isn't as new and revolutionary as Cho makes it out to be; it's just the marketing that's been updated to entice naive people in 2017.

@Prop- 1- they actually have their own ULA... read carefully :-)2 - It doesn't help photographers "solve a marketing problem" because they are not making money ( the photographers that is, Unsplash is).3 - Sure, if you want to view that way, but that doesn't seem to take out the fact it also hurts photographers then (Unsplash). After, all Unsplash is stock photography, no?4 - Thanks for asking! But I don't. Not that it has anything to do with the argument in the end :-)

He lost me with "I get how Unsplash could seem...". Try "I understand how..."

His equation with 'professional' cameras solely with just megapixel size is also just ridiculous. He is catering to the same market that Uber is: that other people have to be slaves so I can live a comfortable life". All dressed up in 'feel good, sharing' terminology. His article has about as much depth as Lady Gaga.

Their terms include an indemnity clause for photographers. If Unsplash is sued for your photo (e.g. trademark infringement), you’re liable.You agree to arbitration. Arbitration isn’t inherently bad, but if you’re sued by a big corporation in the court system, your only recourse with Unsplash is through arbitration.Model released image have no guarantee. This is actually true with any platform. But established companies like Getty Images – whose revenue is built around image licensing – have a financial incentive to double check this detail. Caveat emptor."

When I read Unsplash's lengthy Terms and Conditions I was immediately struck at how well they have protected themselves while leaving photographers holding the bag.

I disagree with your determination that binding arbitration is not inherently bad. Bottom line: It is used to protect the corporation's interests and deny plaintiffs their day in court before an impartial judge and jury. Mandatory binding arbitration clauses such as this one are particularly onerous.

The premise sounds noble at first. Basically free advertising for photographers, and free content for users.

Until you realize that hosting servers and hard drives, providing a web site, hiring IT folks, and just generally "keeping the lights on" costs money.

This cash has to come from somewhere. Which means this isn't really a "free" service whatsoever. How long until the site starts turning a profit for its founders, or starts charging contributors and/or users? After all, just look at 500px...

This discussion reminds me tangentially of a personal experience, some 20 years ago in the film days.A friend of my sister insisted that I would do the photos for her wedding. I said I am just a hobby photographer but she wanted me to do it. A reason for not a pro photographer was simply to save much needed money. Actually I would have preferred just to party along, but ok, in the end I did it for free and gave her the films and prints as my wedding gift. Would a professional photographer have done it better? Probably even if simply because they know inside out how to best do weddings, but at least the results weren't embarassing and good enough for the cash-stripped couple. (Continued below)

The interesting thing was when a pro photographer of a next door ceremony noticed me, probably my nikon f601 (decent amateur slr) gave me away as an amateur, and he complained to me that I was taking away the job of a real photographer. I thought that was mightily arrogant of him. My sister's friend wouldn't have paid for him anyway.

Although I personally thought it was rude of the photographer to confront you, he was right. Your sister's friend may not have hired him but she would have definitely paid for a professional photographer. The reason why she didn't is that you were there, ripe for the picking. Whenever people like that come across an "amateur" who's as good as a professional but too insecure to actually consider themselves good enough to charge for their services, they take advantage and choose the amateur.

This is true, regardless of photography, art, fashion, etc. When I was 18 and in art high school, I had adults coming out of the woodwork asking me to draw patent diagrams for them. One was gracious enough to pay me but the others typically exploited the fact that I was just a "kid", considered myself "just starting out" and was related to someone they knew and paid me nothing. If I wasn't around, they would've definitely paid a professional artist, no question.

Oh, how sweet and wonderful it is for the benevolent Michael Cho to provide this charitable service in which photographers give away their best photos for free for the benefit of everyone, while he himself waits in anticipation of the day his site goes public and he and the rest of his staff make billions overnight.

maybe then photographers should do a crowd-funded launch of a website where they become shareholders by virtue of submitting photos, and earn revenue from their images as well as getting share options?

It's a lot of words to say, "Disrupt your afternoon with my Dr. Pepper's Wonder Brain Elixir, mixed and manufactured from the exploited aspirations and purest tears of desperate free laborers around the world!"

This misanthropic junk is both tired and on the wrong side of history in too many ways to list. Somebody should run this snake oil salesman out of town.

Why is it so hard to understand that photographers need to earn a living? Am shocked that many here still can't tell the difference between knowing how to blur a background and an actual photo shoot on location. You know the kind that requires a lot money to fund, a lot of equipment and tons of things that go wrong. All so you can maybe get one out of 300-400 shots maybe looked at by an editor. Truly regret posting any pictures online after reading this article. The internet is truly the cult of the amateur.

The internet was the worst thing to happen to creatives on every conceivable level. If there's any small consolation, nothing lasts forever and someday, all of this nonsense will fall away very soon and professionals will be back on top again. I don't know how, but it'll happen.

It's all about supply and demand. Too much supply, no demand. Yes, Mikael Cho you and your company are devaluing photography. It simply makes it less salable. If you supply free stock, that devalues my for-sale stock. Take your business model and go put in where the sun doesn't shine. 😡

Sorry, but that is like claiming that because every 2-3 year old can draw, it has rendered every artist unemployed because there is thousands times more kids than artists....

You know, supply and demand....

And yet we have people who go and pay even millions for a decades if not hundreds of year old scribbles while we can use digital cameras!

So how about you would simply put aside your fear and stop being terrorized by yourself and capitalism and simply start doing, producing and capturing the photos!

Photography can be art, and you can make unique photos that others don't have!

It is like Mikael Cho has just taken your family photos and sharing them free to everyone. Or has just taken the photo from your vacation that you wanted to sell to someone!

(It is as well funny by capitalism fans because you talk about "supply and demand" that competition is so important and so needed etc. Yet when someone comes to compete and puts fair fight, C-fans are screaming how it is unfair!)

Nope, didn't say this at all. What I said was the dude is being disingenuous as he's making money off of other people giving their stuff away for free while he covers it up as though he was offering a humanitarian service. Imagine if the CEO of Uber said his goal was to facilitate people getting from one place to another by connecting them through his app?

Just work for free. Maybe at some point your employer will pay you some money. Some employers cannot pay you for your work so they would never hire you. But if you work for them for free you can be a great inspiration. Tell the guys at the next burger store how awesome and inspiring their lunch. I am sure they give it for free then. If they give you enough burgers for free then you might eventually pay one in the future. Oh what a lovely world.

Altruism is wonderful but rarely seen in the Business World. There are both Pros and Cons to this site but also some "incongruous" aspects (see advertising below).

It's an old but true adage: "Follow the money trail for the a clear perspective on the motivation". Where there's money involved Altruism comes at a price. Advertising on the site is questionable. Freely given work is providing Advertisers (and by implication their clients) opportunities for Revenue.

The Internet already provides plenty of "free stock photography".

If no one knows who you are, or can't find you, they can't hire you.

Releases are one of the more frustrating aspects of professional photography but there for several GOOD and VALID reasons. "Licenses to use" help support those. I see a plethora of legal minefields for some unfortunate photographers, professional or not but more likely not the professionals as they are more aware of the pitfalls.

The sad thing is this site has become hugely popular and as such I have no doubt the site creators are making a lot of money from it. It does indeed devalue the work that skilled individuals put into their craft at a time when the profession is already under huge pressure. It seems to be a very selfish thing to do, but what do these site creators care when they are probably doing personally very well from this venture. It's two fingers up to the profession, "I'm alright jack" They can spin it however they like.

Unsplash is a nasty leach of society...... They feed off stupidity. There are many others sites just like them. The photos you gave away for FREE at some point they hope to profit big time from all the millions of photos stupid photographers just flat out given away for free.

Like someone else has mentioned and I'm sure readers have noticed they have a couple of Unsplash Trolls in the thread.... RED i ..... being the main one.

Good pro photographers are worth what they get paid; they put an awful lot of skill and effort in getting out the product they're being paid for.

The overwhelming majority of enthusiast photographers aren't in that category. For one thing many have day jobs and can't afford the time which a good pro puts into it.

I can't see many pros using Unsplash. They will have a website, and if any snaps are being given out free then it makes sense to put them on that website. They can still retain control of the pics if they make them available under something like the Creative Commons licence.

If Unsplash used that licence, it would make more sense; People can still use the pics for free but must acknowledge who took them. Unsplash could attract amateurs who are wondering what to do with their pics, but I think they'd have a better chance if they allowed the photographer to retain the copyright.

The really scary part here is how many here would lynch mob someone who is willingly, legally and not under duress giving away their photos for free, along with the copyrights and not wanting any compensation for it.

Apparently they seem to think that photos have to have some kind of monetary or social value and somehow that should override free will because it would take away someone making money.

I think that what is really scary here is how many commenters have little idea just how valuable a photograph can be depending on the subject and how it is used. Sometimes a seemingly valueless image can become quite valueable due to a change in circumstances no one may foresee.

Of course people have the free will to do what they want with their images including give them away. But I would hope that being a part of the community of photographers that they would seriously consider the ramifications for their professional brethren and those amateurs who aspire to someday become a professional photographer.

Please show us the world wide right that says photos have an automatic right to be valuable and that a photographers has the right for his/hers works to have an automatic value.

If photographers upload their photos to that site to be used by anyone and in any way for free and they think it'll make their skills/business more valuable because of the exposure why would you deny them that?

The real problem for the photographer isn't this website. Stock photography isn't worth it to pay the bill for most; And we know it. Some compared to software that the same. The licklyness to make money by releasing a random app on an app store is very low. The photo or app will be one arround many.

In both fields it is much easier to make money by doing work for clients. Likely something custom and tailored for them. Key difference between the 2 fields is that the equilibrium between offer and demand isn't the same. Likely because computer science is much younger and likely also because the most basic thing is still quite labor intensive in computer science.

As to complaining that others should not share or give away their work so that you or me could make more money is naive and selfish.

If your business model doesn't work, it isn't by complaining that you'll save the day. You need another business model or maybe even to change completely they type of work you do.

Do you even understand that value of the photography has gone down since few last decades since Leica made their first pocket camera with 35mm film?

Since the photography became a widely done work, its value has started to drop. Same way as a smartphones etc has dropped the value of the photography. Because there is more likely someone with a fancier nicer photo than you have. And it ain't so because they give it for free, it is because there is more people with the camera on the correct time in the correct location and taking that photo, while rest are doing something else somewhere else.

Same way Internet has destroyed millions of jobs because you can just deliver information across the world.

Yet where there are always jobs, is the trashman and cleaners, as someone needs to be doing that, until robots comes and does it! And then there is someone who needs to repair those, until it is just replaced!

@lightandaprayer Billion people were thinking the same as you till the begining of human history for various subjects.

It helped them to find an external reason for their problem and they found it easier to complain that it was better before and so on. Most of them are dead anyway and in today world people life expectency is better, they live in better conditions, work less, have more time for themselve, including ranting on forums.

In the grand scheme of things have photography cheap or free is beneficial to humanity as a whole like have more work done by machines and all. And like it or not, rant as much as you wait this will not go away.

There billion interresting things to be done in life more interresting than to insist on making a leaving on selling stock photo, included in the domain of photography. Let's just focus on something that make sense and enjoy your life. Change yourself instead of expecting other that do not care one bit about you would change for you.

1. What do professional ethics recommend / require professionals to do. In graphic design, we are constantly reminded about the evils about "working on spec"... producing a high quality output for free to a 'client' who has not yet agreed to pay for any of your work. Do these ethical guidelines apply only to professionals or are they also useful fir hobbyists, ethusiasts or amateurs to consider.

2. What must it have been like to experience the democratization of knowledge/printed text and higher education in the 16th and 20th centuries? How did this change society and sectors of the economy. Are we experiencing something similiar right now (last 10 years or so) as more and more people relinquish all rights to the visual property they create? The upheaval in newsrooms for professional photographers is well-known; what other sub-sectors of the economy are no longer / less willing to pay for professional quality?

3. Finally, is it still possible to make a living from photography? My answer would be, "Yes." Not my personal goal, though. It is just that today many more people fancy themselves 'photographers' compared to even 2 years ago. [I am going to have to find stastistics on salaries and overall numbers of professional photographers to fully answer my question]. Surely this 3 year old site is not going to hurt professional photographers...will it? ...but then again, I know the definition of 'disruption' and heard anecdotes / stories about how Youtube has changed small appliance repair businesses for the worse.

This is great for business, if your name is Mikael Cho. There is always going to be money in moving huge amounts of content on the web. If people want to see their photos as being part of the fuel for this, they have every right to submit them. In my business we call this exploitation of the hopeful.

One issue this site and some posters completely miss. If you are a soon to be married bride, are you going to search for photos of another wedding for your album? There is a big difference between gathering incidental great shots from millions of people vs. photographing on command and getting good results every time. That's the difference between a professional and a casual photographer... producing a good result every time. It isn't ok to redo it, to come back another day or to just hope. When your performance matters, hire a professional and be prepared to pay. Unless of course you give every guest a camera too and just hope you'll get what you want. What a mess.

Sure and if you ask me the wedding thing while nice is by no means necessary. In particular now that people can quit at any time. A wedding is quite expensive and if some people don't want it, who are we to blame.

But anyway there still lot of weddings these days and many other paid work. There just too many photographers for the demand.

If you as a photographer (I'm beginning to hate that word) are just beginning, you have nothing to lose. As a hobbyist with another job, why not? This kind of site equalizes established pro with everyone else. It's the karaoke of photography. Nothing new. Harness millions of people to solve a single problem. What it does do, is devalue every image to just an image. The artifact value of a printed photograph no longer exists for anything newly created. What isn't answered in this article is how Cho is making money from this? Also, what are the "rules". If I capture an image at an event or hard news, I may give permission for the use of the image, but what about the people, owners of property, etc? This could be real fun! Imagine, you're a new winery, photograph bottles of your wine artfully and post them up! Free advertising. But what if you're a well known brand? But like Atarco says, nobody does anything for free! Is this his solution to avoid to paying for an image?

Hey Mr Cho! Please upload your entire software along with the documentation wich were used to build your site and apps to github. Please uncopyright it so others can build, not only photo networks but also other media networks based on Unsplash. I'm positive that this will benefit you in all ways.

Presumably this costs a fair bit of money to run and so I'm curious how they cover that cost?

They also don't require a photographer credit, which is a little annoying if you want people to hire you.

Also the examples of usage include some big commercial things that lost someone some money, even if only a small stock photo fee.

Not saying it's a bad idea, just seems to have some issues.

Oh and how does it work when they put Public Domain-ish images on the site, are they really covered by their licence rather than another one? (I got suspicious when I saw a shot taken in space, seems to be from NASA.)

Finally I wonder how many of their downloaders know they can't use images with identifiable people in for the majority of things unless they have a model release...

Cho's business model is explained in an article published in Medium, mentioned at the bottom of his Unsplash webpage. The article is entitled 'Hello, Unsplash, Inc.' Unsplash appears to be the ultimate marketing vehicle for another company he runs. Clever.

Ever hear of mood boards?? At one time Advertising Agencies just cut photos out of magazines to show what they wanted their new ad to look like. Sometime they would even film mood boards to make 30-60 second demo commercials (known as Anamatics).

Model releases were not a problem, as only a few people from the Agency and the Client ever saw these mood boards or Anamatics—no big deal. If the Client liked the idea an Agency pitched, then a test campaign was shot using paid models and actors. They also used paid Photographers/Directors of Photography and a full paid crew. If the test campaign tested well, then a real campaign was shot with big name photographers, better models, etc.

Thing have changed over the years, but mood boards and Anamatics are still in use.

The internet is putting millions of people out of work. Why should photographer's be any different? Adapt or die. No one cared when other craftsmen and entire industries became technologically obsolete. All this moralizing is missing the point.

My reading of the piece is that Cho's argument is that Unsplash does not threaten pro photography because it is not supplying pictures to clients who otherwise would have paid you. Instead it supplying students or corporate employees doing their weekly team meetings who need something to illustrate a powerpoint presentation. These are people with zero budget who are not in a position to and never would pay anyone for an image. They'd likely use their own image, steal something off the internet or simply go without. Unsplash provides them with a service to make their presentations marginally more interesting but the extra value is very low so needs to be free or it simply wouldn't be done.

On the surface, that sounds like they are meeting a demand that is entirely parallel to the revenue streams of pro photogs.

full stop, the idea of having parallel demand streams, one free, one paid for, is nonsense. The cash buyer will switch to the free channel.

If you set the value of a product at zero for a market, as the product has no value to them, then you can't charge for that product in market where the product does have value, as you have now set the value of the product as zero.

But it's a misnomer to say that photography has no value to those who can't pay.. clearly it does, because demand exists. This model strips profit from one producer, to pass that profit onto another producer of a different product.

it creates a unsustainable supply chain through the destruction of a viable supplier to artificially sustain a unviable supplier.

this is no different from the exploitation of any working population for the profit of another, the garment industry is notorious for this, it's another attempt to control access to the end market by exploiting a dominant position.

All those who say This is just the market in action, actually miss the point. The markets depend on setting value via demand, and if we say that the inability to afford as the driver for demand of a product, is the arbiter for the value, we move away from that position. We actually are saying that luxury added value goods, are worth only as much as the poorest can afford to pay.

ergo we destroy the concept that profit is created via the exploitation of added value. we remove the driver for innovation and efficiencies because we make the base materials worth zero. if the costs of manufactureing are zero, why innovate?

it's a reductio ad absurdium model for economics which somehow seeks to create profit, through destruction of the profit in the supply chain, something which eventually destroys the supply chain.

what Mr Cho really fails to understand however is the nature of his own product. he's a service provider seeking to connect users who seek free ip with providers, and that market is dominated by Google.

He is doomed to failure as he does not have a USP, and he lacks the muscle to exploit his idea fully,

In the end he will do some assett mining, and the fail as Google exploits any sustainable model he might create. In reality MR Cho has created a targeted search engine with a limited assett base, Mr Google does this alreqdy with a unlimited assett base and massive market penetration.

he's doomed, and if you give him pictures, those will eventually just dissapear into the virtual world as orphan works.

where do I say photography's role will not change? The idea that somehow we can entirely seperate value in a product from money is fine in a non commercial context, but in a commercial context where something is exploited for profit, the value MUST be contextualised via a easily transferable assett with an agreed value, be it USD, or Stering, or Bitcoins, or grain.

Photography'ss role is rapidly becoming one of language you take a very narrow view maybe you should become more aware how it is used as communication form. By far the majority images running on the internet and in family albums.clouds around have no commercial value and are never viewed more than a couple of times as their relevance has passed.

Don't confuse the increase in volume and proliferation with change. photography has always done what you describe, and will always do so, and photography has always been commercially exploited, and will continue to be so.

why should we now strip photography of value for commercial users? do we do this with music, writing, cinema? of course not.

again, this is just someone Assett stripping an industry by shifting commercial value from the creator, to lower the cost of the resource to zero and make the distribution of the resource the profit centre instead of the resource itself.

photography has been exploited commercially as a form of communication since it was invented, nothing taking place on the Internet is new in that regards. it's simply more volume, and greater proliferationl

The photograph is now pop music. There are so many ways to "create" an image. It doesn't matter anymore. There is no point to photographing anything scenic or during a trip except family members because thousands of people have been there already and thousands of images exist. But there is a big difference between gathering and filtering thousands of images from millions of people and taking wedding photographs and getting good results every time, on command.

The smarphone, Instagram, snapchat, facebook changed how we use images it is directly integrated in language and how we communicate Nothing to do with volume but how it is used by society not individuals Despite all that there is very little usable on the site just a bunch of pictures and there are lots of bunches of pictures around.

It shouldn't be surprising that many comments appear to support Mr. Cho's little enterprise. . . Most of the photographers on DPR are amateurs who do not make their living from it. They have not spent years honing their skills to a pro level while slowly building a business, all the while responding to the increasing pressures of a quickly changing media market. DPR is primarily a website for aficionados of photo gear. The creative aspect of photography is a distant secondary aspect and the pro's photo experience barely registers on the forum.

Biz models like Mr. Cho's help undermine pro photography. Schemes to obtain free stock photos are not new but wrapping them in a veneer of brotherly love is. . . Mining photo sharing sites to acquire free images from clueless hobbyists is another way to avoid licensing fees. I imagine that people on DPR would feel differently if it was their livelihoods threatened by such underhanded ways to avoid paying creative pros for their work.

Cho's little enterprise is aimed at all those gear collectors who inhabit the DPR forums. Seems like he's looking for place-holder photos, not stock photos. It's not surprising that the gear-heads are giving a positive response. Having Unsplash as their agent allows them to tell their family that all the money they spend on gear is not wasted.

As a professional photographer who makes a living out of photography I want to know who will give ME money to feed my life, cover my expenditures and feed my family, pay my taxes, my car, my apartment, health insurance and retirement.

Would DPR or Mikael Cho please be so kind and explain it step by step to me?

Just because you have chosen certain job doesn't mean someone is obligated to pay you for it. If being professional photographer doesn't pay your bills it's probably time to look for something else like all the rest of us.

Who is forcing you to give your images out for free? Can you show me where its a requirement or the law for anyone to sign up for the website? Or are you saying you didn't read the TOS, signed up and uploaded?

But people ARE willing to pay for photography, so why should those who CANT , ( or can) get it for free?

Mr Cho is arguing that the value is trending to zero, so we should get ahead of the curve and give it away now, but he is basing that on a invalid comparator, namely depreciating assetts made obsolete through change... photography per se is NOT being made obsolete. photography is a form of intellectual property, and he is mistaking photography as a simple commodity/product, and thus assigning a value paradigm based on that preconception, but photography's value is not exclusive to output, it's value lies in its nature as IP, so when we reduce the commodity value to zero, we reduce the value of IP to zero, we say, ideas, original thought, innovation, is worth nothing, and we strip the right to generate wealth off our own ideas and original thought from ourselves. We destroy the only REAL assett of value which humans have, their own creativity.

but it's entirely true. if you think your tv, or your camera, or your house, has any real value or capability to generate wealth for yourself, your mistaken. the only non-depreciating wealth generating assets in existance are based on intellectual property, which is recognised as a property right of individuals via almost universal law.

and photography is a material form of IP, which is why it's protected by copyright. when we destroy the individuals ability to profit from their own IP, we destroy societies abIlity to create wealth, and when we reduce the value of any form of IP to zero, we are attacking the concept of IP, and removing the key driver for innovation in society.

I have no doubt that many in society simply think that photography is about pushing a button, and is no more than their experience of happy snapping, but to extend this personal experience and value paradigm to others, is an arrogance.

NottsPhoto, it's not Cho who gives away intellectual property for free, it's the authors who do it willingly. If I may use your example - if I want to donate my house or my car or whatever, who are you to tell me its wrong and why do I have to justify myself to you?

You can always spot someone who doesn't grasp an arguement, when they use the term "chill out". (which btw, went out of fashion in 2007..)

Mr Cho, (nor myself,) is not arguing that people should or should not be allowed to do anything they want with their photographs, Mr Cho is arguing that photographs have no value, and therefore should be free....

which, paradoxically if made so, would remove peoples ability to do what they wished to do with their photographs.... as it would remove the protection that copyright offers them to do so.

So Red1 etals position that folks should be able to do what they wish with their images is sound, but supporting Mr Cho as a tenant of that position is flawed, because Mr Cho is not arguing that, he is arguing the opposite.... he is arguing people should NOT be able to choose what they wish to do with their pictures, society should.

I fully support photographers doing what they want with their work, It's Mr Cho who doesn't.

I think that social media has devalued the photograph. There are just too much out there that is seen as pro quality at least in comparison to the average professional's output. People with smartphones are taking better pics these days because it gives them access to more opportunities and many have had to learn many of the techniques that the traditional pro was valued for. The younger generations have also had more freedom to learn to be creative.

These days equipment really is the only thing that some customers will still value when it comes to choosing a photographer, and consistency/reliability. But the person on holding the camera still has to have a unique vision in order to really excel as a pro.

Is Mikael Cho himself making money from this? I suspect he is or is trying to create successful website and then cash out like Phil Askey did with this one. If he is trying to get rich off the free work of others then that is shameful and no one should help him. If he isn't then this is sort of like open source software.

Of course, on reflection I realize that our comments here and in the forums are free content we create so dpreview can make money. Not so different than what Mikael Cho is doing. Phil did reviews and stuff too though whereas Cho seems to be adding nothing but a website to hold the free photos people give him.

His business model is explained in the article at the bottom of his website: 'Hello, Unsplash, Inc.' Whether or not it can become profitable is an open question and one that will depend on whether or not, for example, he takes on advertising or introduces freemium model or introduces some new pricing model for an existing or new service (e.g. a new filter for uploaders). The possibilities of monetizing Unsplash are numerous, with certain possibilities becoming less risky as downloads, uploads, views and likes grow.... As others have intimated, the path is somewhat familiar when one looks at other companies in the online world.

I'm a big proponent, and developer, of free software. I put most of my software out as open source with fewer usage constraints than a copyleft. I also post my 3D printing designs for free. However, Unsplash is a hard thing to get used to.

First off, I don't see what their business model is -- and there should be one, because it is a .com, not a .org. Second, I don't quite get the verbiage about they will handle license issues, because I don't see where they'd get money to pay for any court battles. Third, I'm honestly uncomfortable giving blanket permission for use of my photos... which is strange, given how comfortable I am giving away so much of my work product that is more valuable, but I guess they're often "personal" enough that it would bother me to see them used in certain ways.

All well and good to take the moral high ground at the expense of new and inexperienced photographers . . . when you are making money off the ads and selling/trading subscriber info. Exploiting others for your gain under the guise of 'helping out' is not cool. Lets see them offer some of the 'ad money' to photographers . . or better yet, offer up their design work for free.If you want to give away your work - do it through your own website so you own the contacts and relationship, and not them :)

Not quite. Open source software generally comes with licenses. Even the permissive BSD license requires you to retain the copyright notice. It's a bit like CC Attribution license.Unsplash dispenses with even the requirement for credits.Whereas open source can make sense particularly with big software projects if you're a developer yourself, as you give some of your own work away, but receive the work of others for free in return, I'm not sure about photography.It might make sense for design agencies that happen to have people who take photos on staff. Eg if you're a web design agency and take your own photos in house, but suddenly need something that would be expensive to set up, then sharing and using Upsplash might make good sense if you're charging on a project basis.It doesn't look so good for full-time or freelance photographers without other skills.

Providing images for free in the hope of gaining "exposure" is a failed trope that has been a part of the photography business for many years. The problem is that there are always photographers who fall for it. . . Usually they are just starting out and in the majority of cases their careers will wind up going nowhere.

Don't fall for it. . . Develop your photo skills to the point where you leave the amateurs with minimal talent and their automatic-everything DSLRs in the dust. The agencies and publications that value talented and skillful photographers will pay well when real money and reputations are on the line.

sorry dude, not about that at all. it is about these guys getting more click through's and exposure to get more click through's . . .this is how they make their money.If it was altruistic they would offer up their own design work for free.

cdembrey At a certain level of professional photography the wheat quickly gets separated from the chaff. . . You don't rise above the level of Craigslist Photographer unless you have the chops to do so.

Everyone starts at the bottom with zero skills. You obtain the necessary skills over time through a variety of means. I am speaking to the photographers who understand this and who have committed themselves to their personal development as a photographer. It took me some years to become good enough to go pro. And more years to get to the point where I attracted the kinds of clients I had always wanted to work with. At 35+ years I am still learning new skills as the craft of photography continues to evolve.

@fullstop Even when all your ducks are lined up in a row and you are fully prepared, creating a great image often entails a bit of good luck. The skilled photographer is the one who is most likely to be able to take full advantage of good fortune.

Packaged in a lot of beautiful words this Guy is making us believe what I have encountered time over time again for the full 40 years as professional photographer: "We give you free exposure so you can get good paying assignments, sorry but we have no budget we are only a small ..... ". At the same time those 'clients' and this guy profit from advertising. Nothing has changed , in the old film day 'poor' on-paper publishers raped us now his type to 'good-do'ers' try again.It is true that stock photography is not as profitable as it was , in the '80 - ''90 s I had a small portfolio with an agency that consistently brought me about $500 per month. Now a similar portfolio does not even bring that in a year. But does that mean we have to share our image on a free platform that makes money with advertising ? If this guy is really as philanthropic as he makes us believe he is : REMOVE YOUR ADVERTISING FROM UNSPLASH and we can talk.

There was a pro-photographer who posted a vid that you can never turn a $500 client into a $5000 client so the idea that you can turn someone who downloads your work for free into a paying client down the track is simply false. You might build a relationship but not one that will be financially fruitful in the future.The second point is on altruism. Altruistic photographers who want to give away their photographs already have a means to do so with any number of photosharing sites by posting their images under creative commons or no licence. Last point is directed to DPR...The author of this article is also the CEO of Upsplash so this isn't an "opinion piece", its advertising. This article should have been marked as sponsored content.

I think dpr realised it would attract lots of attention and so lots of clicks. I doubt they needed to be paid up-front and am pretty sure they weren't (they do usually say something on sponsored content).

Boy has that raised the hackles of the wannbes here get over it photography is language it replaces words, text and speach, it transcends language differences. I can converse effectivly with anyone in the world that that uses ihe image as language and thats the value of the image.ps someone will always make money and others will miss out ......

This is all opinions indeed and not even the best of friends agree all the time. If this site (dpreview) wanted traffic, they're getting some more now and maybe even expected this article to create such noise. So tsk tsk to DPreview. They definitely caught me today! You're new here and quite interesting. Your first posts to the site take side with Richard Prince and now this. Two wrongs don't make a right ;)

I'll bet good money that Red and fullstop are one and the same person. They joined days apart, both new here. They have an almost identically rude and dismissive way of expressing themselves and ridiculing others - and they clearly have a very similar agenda.

No I didn't defend prince I did defend the concept and I stated that I would have negotiated if I was in his position.

Having a different stance to copyright may not make my way right but it does not make the traditional way right for this day and age.

Peter traditions do not last fo ever young kids/teenagers etc don't have a problem with sharing photos as a language. ps you just lost some good money but the bonus is that you get to keep your bad money

Latest in-depth reviews

The Nikon Z6 may not offer the incredible resolution of its sibling, the Z7, but its 24MP resolution is more than enough for most people, and the money saved can buy a lot of glass. Find out what's new and notable about the Z6 in our First Impressions Review.

Many cameras today include built-in image stabilization systems, but when it comes to video that's still no substitute for a proper camera stabilization rig. The Ronin-S aims to solve that problem for DSLR and mirrorless camera users, and we think DJI has delivered on that promise.

The SiOnyx Aurora is a compact camera designed to shoot stills and video in color under low light conditions, so we put it to the test under the northern lights and against a Nikon D5. It may not be a replacement for a DSLR, but it can complement one well for some uses.

At its core, the Scanza is an easy-to-use multi-format film scanner. It offers a quick and easy way to scan your film negatives and slides into JPEGs, but costs a lot more than similar products without a Kodak label.

Latest buying guides

If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Sony mirrorlses cameras in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Canon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.

For the past few weeks, our readers have been voting on their favorite photographic gear released in the past year in a wide range of categories. Now that the first round of voting is over, it's time to pick the best overall product of 2018.

Sony had the full-frame mirrorless market to itself for nearly five years, but it's no longer alone – the Nikon Z6 and Canon EOS R have both arrived priced to compete with the a7 III. We take a head to head to head look at these three cameras.

As if it needed one, the triple-camera smartphone might really be the final nail in the compact camera's coffin. DPR contributor Lars Rehm brought the LG V40 on a hiking trip recently and found it to be a huge leap forward in terms of creative freedom.

Renowned UK-based landscape photographer Nigel Danson has been using DSLRs for years. In this video, created exclusively for DPReview, Nigel discusses his experience using the Nikon Z7 and why he's excited about mirrorless cameras. (Spoiler... beautiful scenery ahead.)

Chinese optical manufacturer Kipon has added the Nikon Z and Canon R mounts to its range of adapters made to attach medium format lenses from Hasselblad, Mamiya, Pentax and others to full frame cameras.